my views on the local news in Minnesota

2008 Elections

December 06, 2008

I've been reading a lot of conservative blogs lately that
have been telling me that all of the lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's
right to be president are products of some new derangement syndrome.

They emphasize what a long shot it is to get the US Supreme Court to
even pay attention to this. They don't want to back losers. Or whacko
conspiracy theorists.

They don't see any credible evidence to challenge the assertion that
Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen, as required by the
Constitution.

But what they don't address is this important question: who is entitled to a hearing on this subject?

So far, the courts have ruled that ordinary citizens don't have the
right to a hearing on it, and it doesn't matter if they've contributed
to anyone's campaign or taken any steps that would be frustrated by the
election of a president who is not qualified to serve under the
Constitution.

If you're just an ordinary person, you don't have the right to even ask that question in a court in this country.

Well, this bothers me.

I don't care if the evidence these challengers have so far presented
doesn't convince me, because the question is whether they should be
allowed to present it at all, and whether they should be allowed the
normal rights of litigants, such as subpoenas and ordinary discovery.

If whacko truthers don't have standing to raise a constitutional
challenge to a candidate's right to be president under the
constitution, then who does?

Does it have to be somebody who meets the conservative elite's
definition of an intelligent person? Or could it be just somebody who
might be harmed by an unconstitutional presidency? I imagine there
might be many so situated.

Those who seek to silence this conflict may justify their efforts with the goal of avoiding a constitutional crisis.

But to accomplish this avoidance, they would have to muzzle every
attorney in the country who might be involved in litigation arising out
of bills signed into law by the new president.

November 02, 2008

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've gotta have a civilian national security force
that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.

The Posse Comitatus Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. 1385, prohibits most uniformed armed services from enforcing state law or police powers on non-federal property. The Insurrection Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. 331-335, permits use of the armed forces to suppress

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

The Act was a response to, and subsequent prohibition of, the military occupation by U.S. Army troops of the former Confederates States during the ten years of Reconstruction (1867–1877) following the American Civil War (1861–1865).

The Posse Comitatus has already become subject of many exceptions that have increased the power of the presidency.

After Hurricane Katrina, and in the wake of media and public outrage that the federal government had not acted quickly enough, President George W. Bush and the then republican controlled congress passed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, which included a section titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." This section greatly expanded the circumstances under which the president can call in the armed forces under the Insurrection Act to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States."

The 2008 congress repealed these changes, so that the Insurrection Act is now back to its former pre-Katrina form.

Obama's proposal dwarfs all prior attempts to expand presidential power over civilians in this country to an unprecedented degree. He apparently envisions a police state controlled by the president.

More recently, bloggers sounded the alarm in response the announcement in the Army Timesthat the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team is in training to become "an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks."

Glenn Greenwald at Salon called this article "obviously disturbing," writing:

It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.

One of America's most sacred principles has always been that the U.S. military was never to be used for domestic law enforcement. The fear of standing armies ran very deep in the hearts and minds of America's founders. The tyranny and misery inflicted upon the colonies by British troops weighed heavily upon those who drafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights. In their minds, the American people would never again be subjected to the heavy weight of army boots. Furthermore, they insisted that America would have a civilian--not military--government.

And after the fiasco of the abuse of federal troops in the South following the War Between the States, the doctrine of Posse Comitatus was enacted into law.

. . .

Who will give the order to send U.S. troops against American civilians, and under what circumstances? What will the rules of engagement be? How will "unruly" and "dangerous" be defined? How will soldiers be asked to deal with "crowd" or "traffic" control? And perhaps the biggest question is, Once we begin to go down this road, where will it lead?

For several years, the federal government has been accumulating to itself more and more authority that was historically understood to reside within the states and local communities. More and more, our police departments have taken on the image and tactics of the armed forces. And to a greater and greater degree, the rights and liberties of the American people are being sacrificed on the altar of "national security." It seems to me that to now ascribe law enforcement duties to the U.S. Army only serves to augment the argument that America is fast approaching police state status.

If Hurricane Katrina is the template that our federal government is using as a model for future events, Heaven help us! Do readers remember how National Guard troops were used to confiscate the personal firearms of isolated and vulnerable civilians shortly after that hurricane devastated the New Orleans area? Do you remember how representatives of the federal government were calling upon pastors and ministers to act as spokesmen for gun confiscation? Is this what the new Army brigade is preparing for? And do President Bush and his military planners envision an even broader role for military troops on American soil?

And what do Barack Obama and his military planners envision? By his own words, a vast expansion of federal powers beyond George W. Bush's wildest dreams.

Here are some videos
where Hillary supporters describe the Chicago-style voter fraud that
helped Obama get the Democratic nomination. And with the FBI investigating ACORN's role in voter fraud across the nation, we naturally wonder whether this is going on in Minnesota.

Well, Minnesota Majority obtained voter rolls from the Secretary of State and found evidence of possible voter fraud
in thousands of voter records. Mark Ritchie retaliated by accusing a
Minnesota Majority volunteer of voter intimidation for contacting a
voter. Apparently, Mr. Ritchie is not concerned about voter fraud in
Minnesota.

I called the Secretary of State's office to ask what it is doing
about the red flags raised by the Minnesota Majority. I was transferred
from one person to another, and told that I needed to talk to someone
in the "voter fraud" division, but that person was out of the office
but would call me back.

The person who called me back told me that the Secretary of State
had no authority to investigate voter fraud, and that it was the
counties that had that responsibility. The obvious next question was
why does the Secretary of State's office have a "voter fraud" division.
Maybe they're changing the name of that division to "voter
intimidation."

October 25, 2008

Philip Berg's lawsuit against Obama, the DNC and the Federal Election Commission has been dismissed by the federal district court judge in Philadelphia on the basis of standing. (A poor copy of the court's decision is here,
if you can read it). This means that the judge refuses to rule on the
actual facts at issue because he doesn't think that Berg has
demonstrated, even assuming that Obama is not a natural born citizen,
that he individually has been injured by that fact.

Which leads to the question, if a voter can't challenge a
presidential candidate's qualification under the US Constitution, then
who can?

The so-called standing doctrine is intended to ensure that the
plaintiff has a personal stake in a lawsuit. That's an
over-simplification of the issue, but that's how it's usually put.

Whether Obama is a "natural born citizen" is important because the US Constitution requires that as a pre-requisite to becoming President.

The Pennsylvania court took a pass on this question, and I think it's a very serious issue. Consider this:

What if Obama is elected president, and later is found to not be a "natural born citizen?"

What happens to whatever bills he has signed into law? Are they enforceable?

And the bigger questions: What happens while the courts are
deciding whether Obama is qualified to be president under our
constitution? Who will have undisputed authority as commander in chief?
Would this be an opportune time for our enemies to attack?

Remember what happened when the courts got involved in the Gore/Bush election? This will be much worse.

The lawyer that brought this lawsuit in Pennsylvania is a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. He has been criticized for being a "9/11 truther," detracting from his credibility.

Mr. Berg alleges that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and that
even if he was born in Hawaii, his citizenship was changed to
Indonesia, the country of his stepfather, when he moved there and
entered an Indonesian school, because in order to do so he would have
had to have been an Indonesian citizen.

The defendants asked the court to dismiss Berg's complaint. The law
requires the court to assume that all of Berg's allegations are true
when ruling on that motion. The district court did so, and still
dismissed the lawsuit on the basis that Mr. Berg would not be
individually harmed by a presidential candidate that was not a
naturally born citizen.

Although the Obama campaign protests that the commercial's statements are untrue, Volokh demonstrates pretty convincingly that the statements are based on fact, despite a FactCheck article implying otherwise. Here's an excerpt:

One final NRA claim does not get a FactCheck rating, but
it does get a response that might as well as come from the Obama press
office. That is: "Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history."

FactCheck supplies Obama's quote from Heller decision day,
beginning with "I have always believed that the Second Amendment
protects the right of individuals to bear arms..", and promising, "As
President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding
gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago
may not work in Cheyenne."

Well, that Obama has "always believed" in the individual Second
Amendment right did not prevent him from proposing a national ban on
concealed carry, a ban on 90% of gun stores, a 500% tax increase on
firearms and ammunition--as the FactCheck article itself reports. If a
candidate proposed banning 90% of bookstores and a huge tax increase on
books, it might be justifiable to predict that he would be "the most
anti-book president in American history"--notwithstanding his
proclaimed belief in the individual First Amendment right.

Gee, I wonder if the ACLU will now do a commercial exposing Obama's position on the first amendment. As it applies to commercials that attack him.

September 11, 2008

The nomination of Sarah Palin has driven the cognoscenti
over the edge. Their attacks on her have distilled and crystallized all
of the venom they feel toward their inferiors who have the temerity to
challenge their wisdom.
. . .

I suspect much of the rage that has uncovered itself from the left,
the fury that a redneck idiot like Sarah Palin could be swinging an
election of one of theirs that they thought was a done deal, away from
them, is a reaction to once again seeing their deserved power slip
away. Professors of post-modernism, feminist and queer studies and
other such arcana, are fairly well paid and receive tenure at some of
our most prestigious institutions, yet the unwashed hordes rarely
accord them the respect and awe they so richly deserve. It is a puzzle
that some of our best and brightest have failed to elucidate (despite
their high IQs.) Since much of the MSM has studied in the same
prestigious institutions and have incorporated the same sense of
superiority, it is very difficult for them to recognize their own
provincialism and attend to their own limitations. Further, the
intellectualization that passes for learning in much of elite academia
(and please note that, thus far, such foolishness has not yet infected
the hard sciences, though if Harvard is any omen, the future is of
concern) specifically impairs judgment. When all situations must be
forced to conform to the procrustean bed based on the quasi-Marxist
dialectic of oppressors and oppressed, judgemt (sic) must necessarily
be suspended lest it fail to adhere to the proper paradigm. I would
much sooner trust the judgment of an Alaskan redneck to the judgment of
an Ivy league graduate with little experience in the real world whose
thinking has been contaminated by what passes for education in the
post-modern university.